re: mstohz and hztoms

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

> Comments?

i like the clean up.  it's clearly a step forward.

i only don't understand why 32 bit platforms can't handle
large values here but 64 bit ones can.  is it only so that the
32 bit platforms don't use 64 bit maths when it's not needed?

it just seems wrong to me to limit 32 bit artificially here,
and it's not like it's _that_ difficult to overflow 32 bit hz.
i run with HZ=1000 on some systems, like alpha does by
default.  that gives you 49 days.  even with standard HZ=100
it's only 16 months or so.  (hmm, i wonder if these macros
compile nothing with HZ=1000 kernels.  be nice to confirm or
add a hack :-)

can we make the 32 bit version smarter about accepting small
values with 32 bit maths, but large or non-constant values
with 64 bit maths?

perhaps an explicit mstohz64() could handle the cases if we
know they will exist, since most probably _know_ they are
dealing with short intervals.

there's just something about the artificial limit here that
is bugging me...

thanks.


.mrg.